It's been one of those weeks....(part 2)
Oct 26, 2016 18:23:56 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 26, 2016 18:23:56 GMT
...well, I meant to post this in the same week as my previous thread, but the Internet issues suffered in the interim, a continuing saga, and the new subject, mean that it deserves a new thread, in a different category.
I'd mentioned in passing that I was doing the man math on replacing/upgrading my hifi.
I've previously favoured separates, but the ever-increasing connections are now beginning to looklike a rat's nest a bit untidy, so a single (albeit high-quality) unit was on the agenda. I wanted to replicate most of the existing capability, but also add streaming (which I can currently do, but not in the easiest manner).
I've been an Arcam user right back to the days they were A&R, and was quite interested in their "Solo" range. Unfortunately, in looking, I decided that the Solo Movie 5.1 was expensive for my needs, as I didn't need the surround sound capability, and the Solo Music lacked the ability to play DVD. Further research indicated I really wanted a (non-existent) Solo Movie 2.1 - effectively a hybrid of the two, restricted to stereo output, preferably at the higher output of the "Music" but playing DVD, unlike the "Music".
I decided to pass on a decision, but checking back only 3 days later, it became apparent that Arcam had, in the interval, announced the very hybrid I wanted (the Arcam Solo Movie 2.1), at a price closer to the "Music" than the Movie 5.1 version.
Well, you can't ignore such an omen, can you? So, I arranged an audio demo of the "Music" (it being identical in audio terms to the new unit), liked it, and put a Solo Movie 2.1 on order.........
.....and that's where it started to go wrong.
The unit arrived quickly and was picked up on Friday afternoon. Within 30 minutes it was back in the box for return. The multifunction control on the top of the box was mechanically very suspect and out of alignment; The unit wouldn't sit properly on a flat surface, rocking around diagonally opposing feet; and the front panel and trim was visibly "cosmetically challenged". (instead of a clean line between black case and silver trim, there was significant "bleed-over" between the two making the front look very ragged.
TBF, on return the retailer took (literally) one look and immediately contacted Arcam to agree and arrange a new replacement. The "mechanical" problems may have been caused by rough-handling of the boxed unit, but the cosmetic issues were rather more concerning.
I went to pick the replacement up this morning. The shop had already checked (without removing it from the box) the top control (perfect) and the upper trim where the problem was on the previous unit (perfect). So we took it out of the box to see if it would sit flat, and it was immediately apparent that this unit had the self-same cosmetic problems, but in a different place (the lower trim). We went no further.
I've given the shop and Arcam one more chance, but had a call from the shop this pm saying that Arcam have been opening boxes in the warehouse, and haven't yet found one they're happy to ship!!
I have been offered (via Arcam, indirectly) the 5.1 instead at the same price (normally £400 more). I have seen a few 5.1s (it having been available slightly longer) and these - including the shop's display model - do not have the same cosmetic issues (presumably having been manufactured in an earlier batch).
Unfortunately on headline specification, the 5-channel amplification is 25% down on power from the 2-channel version. However, Arcam advised the shop that the unit can be switched (by settings - which it can) to two-channel mode, and that, in this mode, it is only 6% down - deep in the manual there is text that seems to support this, I have yet to receive confirmation.
So, decisions, decisions - do I take (at the reduced price) a more expensive unit when I don't need the capability the extra cost brings, and live with the minor shortfall in power, or do I simply realise my concerns on overall quality control, and call the whole thing off. I certainly couldn't live with the current unit's cosmetic challenges which are, to use a turn of phrase, "in your face". Not an easy decision, as the unit (or at least the 2.1) really fitted with requirement.
===
I think Arcam also have an interesting problem arising from lack of QC. My shop contact advised me that the units from all the boxes Arcam had opened today would have to go into "re-work". I wonder just how many they have in stock - at £1800 retail this is not low cost stuff! I don't think they can pass them out, as I can't imagine anyone accepting the issues I rejected even on a much cheaper piece of equipment, let alone one supposedly selling into the "quality, audiophile" market.
The poor finish was blindingly obvious, so someone has screwed up!
I'd mentioned in passing that I was doing the man math on replacing/upgrading my hifi.
I've previously favoured separates, but the ever-increasing connections are now beginning to look
I've been an Arcam user right back to the days they were A&R, and was quite interested in their "Solo" range. Unfortunately, in looking, I decided that the Solo Movie 5.1 was expensive for my needs, as I didn't need the surround sound capability, and the Solo Music lacked the ability to play DVD. Further research indicated I really wanted a (non-existent) Solo Movie 2.1 - effectively a hybrid of the two, restricted to stereo output, preferably at the higher output of the "Music" but playing DVD, unlike the "Music".
I decided to pass on a decision, but checking back only 3 days later, it became apparent that Arcam had, in the interval, announced the very hybrid I wanted (the Arcam Solo Movie 2.1), at a price closer to the "Music" than the Movie 5.1 version.
Well, you can't ignore such an omen, can you? So, I arranged an audio demo of the "Music" (it being identical in audio terms to the new unit), liked it, and put a Solo Movie 2.1 on order.........
.....and that's where it started to go wrong.
The unit arrived quickly and was picked up on Friday afternoon. Within 30 minutes it was back in the box for return. The multifunction control on the top of the box was mechanically very suspect and out of alignment; The unit wouldn't sit properly on a flat surface, rocking around diagonally opposing feet; and the front panel and trim was visibly "cosmetically challenged". (instead of a clean line between black case and silver trim, there was significant "bleed-over" between the two making the front look very ragged.
TBF, on return the retailer took (literally) one look and immediately contacted Arcam to agree and arrange a new replacement. The "mechanical" problems may have been caused by rough-handling of the boxed unit, but the cosmetic issues were rather more concerning.
I went to pick the replacement up this morning. The shop had already checked (without removing it from the box) the top control (perfect) and the upper trim where the problem was on the previous unit (perfect). So we took it out of the box to see if it would sit flat, and it was immediately apparent that this unit had the self-same cosmetic problems, but in a different place (the lower trim). We went no further.
I've given the shop and Arcam one more chance, but had a call from the shop this pm saying that Arcam have been opening boxes in the warehouse, and haven't yet found one they're happy to ship!!
I have been offered (via Arcam, indirectly) the 5.1 instead at the same price (normally £400 more). I have seen a few 5.1s (it having been available slightly longer) and these - including the shop's display model - do not have the same cosmetic issues (presumably having been manufactured in an earlier batch).
Unfortunately on headline specification, the 5-channel amplification is 25% down on power from the 2-channel version. However, Arcam advised the shop that the unit can be switched (by settings - which it can) to two-channel mode, and that, in this mode, it is only 6% down - deep in the manual there is text that seems to support this, I have yet to receive confirmation.
So, decisions, decisions - do I take (at the reduced price) a more expensive unit when I don't need the capability the extra cost brings, and live with the minor shortfall in power, or do I simply realise my concerns on overall quality control, and call the whole thing off. I certainly couldn't live with the current unit's cosmetic challenges which are, to use a turn of phrase, "in your face". Not an easy decision, as the unit (or at least the 2.1) really fitted with requirement.
===
I think Arcam also have an interesting problem arising from lack of QC. My shop contact advised me that the units from all the boxes Arcam had opened today would have to go into "re-work". I wonder just how many they have in stock - at £1800 retail this is not low cost stuff! I don't think they can pass them out, as I can't imagine anyone accepting the issues I rejected even on a much cheaper piece of equipment, let alone one supposedly selling into the "quality, audiophile" market.
The poor finish was blindingly obvious, so someone has screwed up!
)